I understand some of the ill feelings about losing yet another SB. And I totally recognize the fact that an extented, yet limited, running game may enhance the Pats' chances of a championship. Bashing the face of your franchise, in TB, doesn't bode well with some of your fellow compadres trying to participate in civil and intellectual debates on this board. Granted you have some viable and commonsensical views, but argumentative responses to someone's opine is just creating a bit of animosity which is entirely preventable. Though I don't neccessarity condone belligerent counter points, sometimes I just feel the need to behave irrationally to some of your and others condescending remarks. Let's all take a pill, relax and reflect before assailling our next derogatory diatribe. Peace.

Right now? Or moving forward? Aaron Rodgers. I like Brees a bit more because he plays more so under center than Brady does.

But, overall, I wouldn't risk changing it out at this point. However, I am well prepared as a fan for when the day comes and Brady can't get his team to a SB title anymore and we need to look at Mallett.

Also, I have no issue with you. As you can see, I carry on perfectly fine discussions here. It's the trolls and belligerents who follow me around who ruin the board.

Right now? Or moving forward? Aaron Rodgers. I like Brees a bit more because he plays more so under center than Brady does. But, overall, I wouldn't risk changing it out at this point. However, I am well prepared as a fan for when the day comes and Brady can't get his team to a SB title anymore and we need to look at Mallett. Also, I have no issue with you. As you can see, I carry on perfectly fine discussions here. It's the trolls and belligerents who follow me around who ruin the board.Posted by BassFishing

Great choices by the way. You are right that the day will come when TB will be showing signs of depleted ability and it will call for the changing of the guard. Finding a brute of a running back would certainly prolonge his career. Not sure if Lloyd is the answer, for TB's accuracy down field beyond 20-25 yards is a bit iffy. The fact that he has to stand in the pocket for a lenghtier amount of time, because of a deeper developing route, leaves him susceptible to injury.

Right now? Or moving forward? Aaron Rodgers. I like Brees a bit more because he plays more so under center than Brady does. But, overall, I wouldn't risk changing it out at this point. However, I am well prepared as a fan for when the day comes and Brady can't get his team to a SB title anymore and we need to look at Mallett. Also, I have no issue with you. As you can see, I carry on perfectly fine discussions here. It's the trolls and belligerents who follow me around who ruin the board.Posted by BassFishing

Fair enough Rodgers, but all Brees does is pass all the time like even more than Marino ever passed and that man passed a h ell of a lot! Even if he does go from under center he then passes from under center....and that's your problem with Brady!

I like how GB and Nos run their offenses more so than us and it's partly due to McCarthy and Payton being better OCs than what we had, but also due to Rodgers and Brees not having as much control and say as Brady does here. Those two OCs, QBs and those teams are better at playing the game like Brady used to here, which is adapting to what the best approach is. THey don't throw 40+ times when it's not working very well, for example.

I was asked the question, I am giving an honest answer. At the end of it, I just want Brady to be better with in-game awareness and for us to take the unnecessary pressures off of him. If that entails bringing in a better lead back over BJGE, great I am all for it. If that means McDaniels being a better, more experienced OC, great, I am all for it.

And, I am well aware of what 2014 means and the possibility by then Brady is not as good as he was in 2010. I want a 2010 Brady from here on out. I want less risk of injury, more running and better chances at SB wins.

In Response to Re: RUSTY, WHO WOULD YOU PREFER AS THE PATS QB? : Great choices by the way. You are right that the day will come when TB will be showing signs of depleted ability and it will call for the changing of the guard. Finding a brute of a running back would certainly prolonge his career. Not sure if Lloyd is the answer, for TB's accuracy down field beyond 20-25 yards is a bit iffy. The fact that he has to stand in the pocket for a lenghtier amount of time, because of a deeper developing route, leaves him susceptible to injury. Posted by GEAUX-TIGRES

Here's my take and yes it's again tied to the shotgun and the non-use of playaction, which is why his deep balls are so awful.

He has less room to step up and he rushes his throws, which is why the trajectories are off all the time. If he had a run game, which we did in 2010, we'd be able to see guys like Ochocinco blasting by CBs in single coverages, and now LLoyd, by allowing a run game to be used and be respected. Again, we did this in 2010.

We just didn't have an Occhocinco then, because we couldn't trust MOss to be patient, be a decoy, run some more routes and shut his mouth.

So, Lloyd's signing is fantastic. It's what Ochocinco SHOULD have been last year, but without a full camp and 4 targets superior than he in this system, we didn;t get the real Ochocinco. And, thus, we didn't get playaction like we should have either.

Part of it was BJGE's turf toe, but that's no excuse in the SB when he, Ridley and Ochocinco were not used correctly, if much at all.

As a Giants fan, you should be thrilled we didn;t use those players in the SB. Your gain, our loss.

Also, Brady was hurt in 2008 on a deep ball, fixated on Moss. I think this element also ties into why he's gotten worse in this area as well, not just because he supposedly had a hurt arm in 2011. When does he get hurt? In the shotgun. He wasn't hurt in 2008 in the shotgun, but I think he gets more dings on him in the shotgun, excessive usage of it and this in turn hurts his comfortability goind deep.

He was never great at it anyway, but just look at the ball to Branch in the 2004 title game. We had established a run game which allowed Branch to lull their DB into a more underneath mode, where Branch snuck behind him, deep.

Brady had a better game against the Giants in the SB than Rodgers had playing at home in the playoffs. The number of wide open receivers Rodgers missed was shocking. And he wasn't missing by just a little bit in most cases.

Brady had a better game against the Giants in the SB than Rodgers had playing at home in the playoffs. The number of wide open receivers Rodgers missed was shocking. And he wasn't missing by just a little bit in most cases. This is Rodgers in his "prime"?Posted by nyjoseph

I think they had 8 dropped balls in that game also. Coupled with a halftime hail Mary to Nicks. Sometimes it's better to be lucky than good.

Right now? Or moving forward? Aaron Rodgers. I like Brees a bit more because he plays more so under center than Brady does. But, overall, I wouldn't risk changing it out at this point. However, I am well prepared as a fan for when the day comes and Brady can't get his team to a SB title anymore and we need to look at Mallett. Also, I have no issue with you. As you can see, I carry on perfectly fine discussions here. It's the trolls and belligerents who follow me around who ruin the board.Posted by BassFishing

I have no problem with an answer like this because it's real. While we should be happy to have Brady(if not blessed!), Rusty's not wrong for saying it. Cut throat approach.

I don't mind at all that Rusty would prefer Rodgers and Brees more than Brady. I do struggle with his insistence that the offense and Brady is solely to blame for our recent Super Bowl losses when it's so obvious there is plenty of blame to go around. And it seems to me that Rusty amped up his anger about this stuff after the loss which is understandable but I'm here to have interesting convos with folks who have both conviction and enough of an open mind to not insist on being right all the time.

The sad part of this is that the tone in this forum would be so much better if the Pats had won the Super Bowl, and I truly believe had Gronk been healthy we would have won. On the other hand the Giants outplayed us so it is what it is.

Having said that, I will concede that the defense did more than I thought it would late in the season and Rusty was certainly right that they would hold up better than many of us thought.

As for me, I wouldn't take Brees or Rodgers over Brady (though obviously you'd take Rodgers if you were building a new team given his youth). I do think, however, the Eli Manning is currently a better big game QB than Brady. That could change again but it's hard to argue agaisnt that right now.

In Response to Re: RUSTY, WHO WOULD YOU PREFER AS THE PATS QB? : Jeez judge a guy on ONE game? yeah, that's today's instant opinions fostered by the social media, created by the ESPN generation. Yeah, like Montana and Staubach and Starr and every other QB didn't have awful games in the playoffs-more mythological nonsense. Some of the games all those guys and Bradshaw and Marino and Tarkenton had in bad games and playoff loses are right there in black and white and on film but no one seems to want to remember them. Hey Joe you see the season Rogers just had? He is the tops in the game right now and playing on another level. He had a total of two bad passes in that game-all the others were drops right in the mitts. And I know he last thing anyone here wants to do is give the Jints CREDIT but maybe credit the Giants D and pass rush just a weeeeeeee bit?Posted by JintsFan

No, I was just saying that here we have Rodgers in his prime, against a common opponent (Giants) and Brady at 35 played better. Rodgers missed on more than 2 passes. Are you kidding? Watch the game again. And Brady had several on the last 4th qtr drive alone (Hern, Branch, and arguably WW).I do not judge on one game. But the path for GB to get back to the SB was tailor-made and Rodgers underperformed.I will agree with you that all the greats have had bad games. In fact, most people consider Montana the gold standard for the playoffs because of his SB play. He was great, no doubt, but he failed to get other playoff teams to the SB, whereas Brady has now been there 5 times.

Could Brady have played better in the SB? Of course. But that's not to say he played a bad game. In both the losses to the Giants he had the team in the lead inside the two minute warning. When guys like Willie Mac, Ty Law, Tedy Bruschi, Rodney Harrison, and Richard Seymoure were here they would (probably) have stopped those last minute drives...at least when they were in their prime. Both of those drives also had a highlight reel catch by a Giants receiver. You can hardly blame that on Brady! Those who have been whining for more of a running game in SB46 are not looking at the big picture. The Giants were not allowing the RBs to make gains, knowing there was no outside threat and Gronk was not himself. In both SB losses the Giants defense was playing championship-caliber defense, NE was not. They gameplanned both games well, and kept the score low to be able to win at the end. You have to give Coghlin and his staff a lot of credit, they certainly outcoached BB in both games, IMO. There were enough missed plays to go around, so that's not all on Brady. Right now I wouldn't want to replace Brady with anyone, even Rodgers or Brees. And the chances of winning a SB when you cannot hold the opposing team to a single three-and-out or get a takeaway are slim. It takes an entire team to win it all, and as a whole the Giants played a lot better overall. So while I'd also love to see them be able to pound the ball like they did with Dillon and Smith, there was a lot more to lay blame on. I'm sure if they had been able to run the ball and move the chains they would have done so to milk the clock. But the RBs were not getting it done (credit as well to the Giants defense). I really cannot wait until the draft and training camp. Hopefully we'll all stop dwelling on past failures and start looking ahead to the future. Reliving the SB loss(es) is depressing! I think Brady is perfectly capable of winning another ring, he just needs to have a more consistent team behind him.

In Response to Re: RUSTY, WHO WOULD YOU PREFER AS THE PATS QB? : I still dont get this at all..so Rogers had a bad game in the playoffs-big deal...whats the point? Brady's had crap playoff games too, so? This is just more searching for anything to knock anyone who people think is better than TB...I've seen and heard it about Brees, Big Ben, Rogers, Eli...anyone who gets to the top of the heap or takes kudos away from Brady automatically gets put under some silly microscope or gets judged ultra-selectively to diminish his achievements...why you think Rogers wouldn't play better than Brady did in both SB losses? I think he might indeed havePosted by JintsFan

Rodgers has has alot more bad games than one, in fact the year he took over from Favre and maybe even the year after he was nothing better than average.... then he came of age. Brady was the king of the hill after one year he's no 2 behind Montana in my mind I don't know if you'd agree with that but as another team's fan i'd enjoy your opinion. In terms of winning though i feel it has to be Brady and Montana. Bradshaw had the best teams ever, Aikman also had the best team of the time.

I wouldn't say I was knocking Rodgers or Brees by stating I wouldn't take them over Brady. I don't know that Brees is a first ballot, but if Rodgers keeps doing like he has he would certainly be remembered as one of the greatest...especially if he gets another SB for the Packers. But that remains to be seen. When considering things like the "GOAT", championships play a big part in positioning. Brady already has three rings, only Montana and Bradshaw have more. Were I to be "raiding" other rosters to build an expansion team I'd probably pick Rodgers. But I believe Brady is the right guy to lead this Patriots team.

In Response to Re: RUSTY, WHO WOULD YOU PREFER AS THE PATS QB? : Brady had a great and clutch D that had the number of his chief rival in Peyton Manning-remember BB was a master DC for the Giants-and the greatest clutch kicker in Vinitieri, who just might be the Pats MVP of those years. Brady, remember, led his team down the field for winning FG's not TD's. Just like Brady could have won with Aikman's and Bradshaw's teams, they could have won with his. And Brady is/was a good, solid and reliable SB performer who made clutch plays, but in those early SB years I always had to rank Brady behind Bellichick, the D and Vinitieri as the reason they won. Still do. As for Rogers what he did this year-don't forget the 51-45 playoff loss the year before and the numbers he put up that year as well-was incredible. I know this is a Pats site but the way people here go out of their way-as I said-to knock anyone they see as a threat to the Golden Boy gets really silly. To be honest I don't compare eras, it's pointless. Is Brady a first ballot HOFer and one of the all-time greats? yes. thats as far as I will go.Posted by JintsFan

I to believed that the Pats D and AV were bigger reasons for their success in those SB wins. Those were complete teams and always had enough to finish.